Best Way to Store List as Constant [on hold]
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Let's say I want to parse some JSON and I store the path in a Java constants class the path that I want to follow.
For example:
public static final List<String> path = Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c");
so that I can do this (pseudocodeish):
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path) {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Would it be better to store this constant as a String like:
public static final String path = "a:b:c";
and then do:
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path.split(":") {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Since the path is already stored in memory, would it be more efficient to just keep a : separated list since that String will take up less space than the array. In this instance, there's a little more work to be done (iterating over String to turn it into list), but then the list is garbage collected when the method is over.
performance
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by πάντα ῥεῖ, t3chb0t, IEatBagels, rolfl♦ 9 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – IEatBagels, rolfl
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Let's say I want to parse some JSON and I store the path in a Java constants class the path that I want to follow.
For example:
public static final List<String> path = Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c");
so that I can do this (pseudocodeish):
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path) {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Would it be better to store this constant as a String like:
public static final String path = "a:b:c";
and then do:
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path.split(":") {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Since the path is already stored in memory, would it be more efficient to just keep a : separated list since that String will take up less space than the array. In this instance, there's a little more work to be done (iterating over String to turn it into list), but then the list is garbage collected when the method is over.
performance
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by πάντα ῥεῖ, t3chb0t, IEatBagels, rolfl♦ 9 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – IEatBagels, rolfl
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
1
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Let's say I want to parse some JSON and I store the path in a Java constants class the path that I want to follow.
For example:
public static final List<String> path = Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c");
so that I can do this (pseudocodeish):
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path) {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Would it be better to store this constant as a String like:
public static final String path = "a:b:c";
and then do:
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path.split(":") {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Since the path is already stored in memory, would it be more efficient to just keep a : separated list since that String will take up less space than the array. In this instance, there's a little more work to be done (iterating over String to turn it into list), but then the list is garbage collected when the method is over.
performance
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Let's say I want to parse some JSON and I store the path in a Java constants class the path that I want to follow.
For example:
public static final List<String> path = Arrays.asList("a", "b", "c");
so that I can do this (pseudocodeish):
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path) {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Would it be better to store this constant as a String like:
public static final String path = "a:b:c";
and then do:
public boolean checkSomething() {
JsonThing json = ...
for (String path : Constants.path.split(":") {
json.get(path);
}
return json.getAsString().equals("value");
}
Since the path is already stored in memory, would it be more efficient to just keep a : separated list since that String will take up less space than the array. In this instance, there's a little more work to be done (iterating over String to turn it into list), but then the list is garbage collected when the method is over.
performance
performance
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
asked 10 hours ago
flyinghigh
97
97
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
flyinghigh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by πάντα ῥεῖ, t3chb0t, IEatBagels, rolfl♦ 9 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – IEatBagels, rolfl
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by πάντα ῥεῖ, t3chb0t, IEatBagels, rolfl♦ 9 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Lacks concrete context: Code Review requires concrete code from a project, with sufficient context for reviewers to understand how that code is used. Pseudocode, stub code, hypothetical code, obfuscated code, and generic best practices are outside the scope of this site." – IEatBagels, rolfl
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
1
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
1
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago
2
2
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
1
1
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago
add a comment |
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
2
Welcome on Code Review. The code you presented in its current form is not meaningfully reviewable. We only review real, working code. If you edit your question to contain your actual code we can review it for improvements. See What topics can I ask about? for reference.
– Calak
9 hours ago
Wait really? Is there a better forum for this then? The algorithm is what needs to be reviewed, not working code. If anything, working code would distract from the idea that I'm trying to emphasize. Same reason academic papers don't use compilable code.
– flyinghigh
9 hours ago
1
@flyinghigh Code Review is all about reviewing working code, not an algorithm or hypothetical code, just real, ready-to-use code. Of course you can scope the "working code" to a single function or module or whatever, but here we need the real thing, not just the idea. For the algorithm itself you may take a look at Stack Overflow or maybe Software Engineering Stack Exchange.
– Alejandro
8 hours ago